DEV DUTT Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that his name and the names of his family members were entered in both the parts of Family Register of village Chakli. However, certain persons took objection to the inclusion of their names in the said Family Register with the result that without affording any opportunity to him these names were taken out of the Family Register of village Chakli and included in the Family Register of some other village Jaindi Kathara situated in the Gram Panchayat Kiari. The case of the petititioner is that on the objections of other persons his name should not have been taken out of the Family Register of village Chakli without affording him any opportunity to be heard. It is pointed out by the petitioner that since his name is taken out of the Family Register of village Chakli the said omission also appears in the electoral roll of village Chakli which is, according to law, required to be prepared in accordance with the Family Register, Part -II.

(2.) The respondents have admitted that the name of the petitioner and his family members did appear in the Family Register of village Chakli which originally belonged to Gram Panchayat Nehog. However, the said Nehog Gram Panchayat was bifurcated into two Gram Sabhas, namely, Chakli and Kiari as per notification of the Government dated March 20, 1978. Thereafter the Family Registers concerned were kept for inspection of the general public under the Himachal Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971 and one Shri D. S. Rathore, Horticulture Inspector was appointed as Authorised Officer to hear objections against these Family Registers. On 27 -7 -1978 Pradhan and Up -Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Nenog objected to the inclusion of the names of the petitioner and his family members in Part II of the Family Register of village Chakli by raising a contention that the petitioner was residing in village Jaindi Kathara. This objection was upheld. However, the respondents have not given any explanation as to why before upholding the objection, above -referred the petitioner was no given any hearing.

(3.) Rule 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971 has been substituted by Government notification dated 6 -7 -1978. According to this substituted rule the register under rule 5 is required to be prepared by the Panchayat Secretary and verified by the Block Development Officer. Under sub -rule (3) of the substituted rule 6 the Family Register is required to be revised and brought upto -date under sub -rule (2) by the 31st January of each year and a public notice inviting objections is required to be posted in the office of the Gram Panchayat and at other conspicuous places. Then follows sub -rule (4) which is important for our purpose. It is as under: